The Coin

For a long time now, I've been trying to put in to words what it is about this US financial environment that troubles me. I think I've finally put my finger on it. We're all chasing 'coin' but what we haven't recognized (or perhaps, what we don't want to recognize) is that there is just one coin but its two sides face opposite directions and the goals of the one side are diametrically opposed to those of the other side. So for the one side to 'win', the other side must 'lose'. The end result is that someone is always going to feel like they're getting the short end of the stick. Maybe someone always will.

As investors, we all want the highest possible rate of return. That's what we want. We don't much concern ourselves with how the rates of return are achieved, we just know what we want. We invest with folk who tell us they can get 10% (and more) returns year over year, even if we know or have heard that the average is 5 or 6%. We're not overly concerned about how our investment guru is going to generate these numbers because we're quite comfortable pretending that his prognostications are somehow reliable. Plus, he sends us these pretty brochures and annual statements that apart from being very pretty, allay any fears we might have about the veracity of the claims being made.

As employees, we want jobs that pay well. Then once we get jobs, we'd like them to have benefits and decent pay checks. We don't much concern ourselves with how the benefits we want will be paid for, we just know what we want. We sign on as employees with organizations that seem to be on an upward growth trajectory, though we have no real understanding of the business of our business or the market in which our business is operating. That lack of knowledge of the business environment puts us at a distinct disadvantage as employees, but we have mortgages to pay, insurance to hold on to and often, flat screen tvs or other consumables that we really want to buy. We don't have time to worry about the 'business environment'. Who cares about that stuff? Just pay us on time and we're happy.

Unfortunately, our two personas - investor & employee - are inextricably linked and until we understand the linkage we run the risk of acting in ways that are inimical to our own best interests. So we want high rates of return, as the author of a recent BusinessWeek article says, we have bought the "snake oil" that the finance people have been selling. At the same time, we have failed to realize that a necessary corollary to the insane returns is low wages, stagnant hiring and loss of benefits for those lucky enough to be employed. The money we want in our portfolios has to come from somewhere. What we have failed to realize is that it's coming from our very pockets!

In a recent BusinessWeek article on the Peter Principle's 40th anniversary, the writer opined that "[w]e are now struggling to stay afloat in a river of snake oil ..... Many of us didn't want to see the lies, exaggerations, and arrogance that pumped up our portfolios. Instead we showered huge rewards on the false financial heroes who fed our delusions. This is the Bernie Madoff story, too. People may have suspected that something wasn't quite right about the huge returns on their investments with Madoff. But few wanted to look closely enough to see the Ponzi scheme."

More than just looking closely, we need also to start looking critically. We need to look at what we're being told and sold. If we stop for a moment and think about the perennially growing earnings figures we might realize that they aren't realistic. Having come to that conclusion, we might as investors stop demanding those crazy earnings projections of  public companies. I'm not for a moment suggesting that a change in investor behavior will instanteously result in a change of business behavior, but one hopes that once rational behavior begins in one quarter, it will spread to others. We can only hope.

It is said that investors are irrational. They're like sheep. Every time an investor sneezes somewhere, investors everywhere get the cold and start investing in Alka-Seltzer. Maybe now is a good time to start thinking rationally and let everyone catch the rational thinking bug. Seems like a good idea to me.

Troy Davis is Me

It's 21 September 2011. It's the International Day of Peace and a man who is quite possibly innocent, is sentenced to die tonight.

For those of us who are not comfortable with the death penalty at the best of times, these are the worst of times. This is precisely what we fear. The thought that a man's accusers could in later years, recant their testimony and that make no difference to his fate is mind boggling and yet this is the case. Our worst fears could potentially be realized tonight as, in the full glare of the spotlight, Georgia proceeds to do what it claims the right to do.

Whatever the ultimate outcome here, whatever the final decision, the death penalty is hopefully going to get the good hard look it deserves. Are there terrible crimes being committed? Absolutely. Do those crimes need to be responded to with strong and swift action and punishment? Absolutely, but given the propensity of human beings to lie to save themselves (this includes witnesses to crimes and the friends, siblings and parents of accused persons (remember the Anthony family of the infamous Casey Anthony trial), punishment that is less permanent than death needs to be available.

Someone pointed out not too long ago that Casey Anthony, though there was quite a bit of evidence, managed to walk free. Troy Davis, even in the face of evidence of innocence has not, and may not live to see tomorrow. This is an odd system but this is the system we've got. Wouldn't it be better to err on the side of caution than to be oh so very wrong?

The status quo that stole tomorrow

When I was a child, there was this character that I read about in some book called the Push Me Pull You (PuMPY). That (mythical?) creature comes to mind when I think of politics today. With one head facing west, the other, east the creature could obviously never travel very far unless there was some kind of compromise as to destination and route to get there. I guess that's why when I think about American politics today, good old PuMPY comes to mind.

There are some obviously competing commitments in the world which need to be balanced if the greatest good is to be achieved for the greatest number*. For the sake of clarity, let's call capital, the pull force and labor, the push force. If that sounds vaguely Marxian, I assure you it's accidental. Maybe. At any rate, the reality is that capital and labor have a shared future (how can they not?) but they have very different perspectives as to how the future is to be achieved. Indeed, they have different visions of how the future should look. Compromise they must, however, if any movement at all is to be achieved and if the future is to be bright for either group.

In the current system however, one group seems to have greater access to the ears, minds and ultimately, the votes of those roaming the halls of power. Strangely enough, it's neither capital nor labor that exclusively holds sway. It's really whomever's got the deepest pockets and the biggest megaphone. Sometimes it's capital, sometimes labor, but mostly it's some vested interest. Vested in what, you ask? The status quo.

It is my firm belief though, that the status quo stands in the way of any real development and growth in this society. I'm not so brave as Bill Maher to think that "...everyone else has their head up their a@#except me" (the title of his new book), but I do have a hypothesis about the lack of real movement around here and it is simply this: the status quo will steal tomorrow.

In a perfect world, the balancing point in the 'push' and 'pull' of the political/legislative process, would be the policy makers. In a perfect world politicians at the federal, state and local levels would be trying to balance the needs and interests of capital against the needs and interests of labor. Unfortunately, the way this system is set up, it's the guy with the fattest wallet (on which ever side of an issue), who puts a bug (or a buck) in the ear of enough representatives who is 'represented'. The scale is heavily tilted towards the side with the cash. This means that even when something needs to be discussed as a matter of urgent national interest (like changes to Social Security, greenhouse emissions, gas taxes,  to name a few), just a little sabre-rattling from vested interests in favor of the status quo shuts down all debate, no matter how necessary.

So off we go, blithely into tomorrow but tomorrow's not there. It's already been stolen. When we get there we'll find out, but by then it will already be too late to do anything about it.




*I am presuming that there is a shared commitment to the idea of 'the greatest good for the greatest number'. If that commitment is not shared then you can stop reading now because the rest of this will just be Polly Anna flapping.

Someday my Prince will come.....and other such nonsense

We all have fairy tales in our heads. They are read to us as children, we read them to ourselves and, in some unfortunate instances, we hold on to them thinking they represent a reality that can be copied and brought to life in our lives. When the Cinderella story or Beauty and the Beast or whatever, and true life don't match, but we continue to hold tightly to the tail of the fairy, trouble ensues.

Here's what I know for sure: fairy tales can be injurious to your health. I suspect that it's better to deal with reality, as ugly as it may perhaps be, than deal with the long term consequences of not having handled the truth about your life. Your prince may not come; you may spend your life the step-child of a mean b*tch of a parent; you may prick your finger more times than you care to think about and no rescuer may appear, charging in on his trusty white steed. So it is. This is life. None of this means that there can be no happiness, just perhaps, that what happiness exists won't be of the fairytale sort.

Several weeks ago, I had the opportunity to see first hand, what some of this living in an alternate reality looked like. It was not pretty. Not only was it not pretty (in my humble opinion of course) but it seemed also to prevent the tale-dweller from approaching the challenges of her present situation with anything akin to a grasp on the severity of their situation.

I won't go in to all the gory details of the situation but will offer this as my exhibit one: I met someone recently who lives in a slightly rundown home with her 70+ year old housekeeper (replete with apron (in 2011!!)). Late at night, certainly at a time when most 70 year olds would be a-bed, this housekeeper was kneading dough for breakfast pastries. The lady of the manor, meanwhile, had long since retired to her suite, having been served dinner in bed, on a tray and covered with a cloche. Ah, post-colonial society!

There was an oddly sad old world (read: 1940's upper middle class Trinidad) feel to the entire thing. Milady was surrounded by her silver spoons and pewter utensils, but there were termites in the roof and a general air of disrepair hanging over the establishment. Milady however, was committed to her servant-in-an-apron-serving-me-dinner-in-bed existence. It was what she knew and in spite of her current realities, it was how she continued to live. My life probably has the same disconnects to folk looking in from the outside.

The disconnect between objective reality - termites, outstanding repair work and the general air of disrepair - and her subjective reality was so stark as to be mind boggling to me. To her, this was all real. This was the world she frequented, maids in aprons and so on. I would only ask that if anyone who knows me well, sees me drifting into an alternate universe, you drag me back. Quickly. Please remind me that the prince is not coming, there is no trusty white steed (and if there was, it has long since been euthanized) and that happily ever after (plus housekeeper in an apron) is for the birds. Reality may bite but I suspect that fantasies bite even harder when allowed to run amok.

Dark & Lovely

I was just reading this article: Dark Girls Documentary Exposes Self-Hatred in Black Community, and had to write.

The article was shared in a professional group for African-Americans in the HR field, and another reader wondered whether the thinking described might have any impact on hiring decisions. This was my response.

I would suspect that it [the thinking mentioned in the article] does factor in to hiring decisions but the real problem is not that others have issues with us, but rather that we continue to have issues with ourselves. That is the greater problem. Discrimination will likely continue to exist for some time to come, but what does that really matter when we are doing all the hard work (and it is hard work) of inflicting psychic wounds on ourselves and each other?

I've heard all manner of comment about my skin. As you can see from the photo, it ain't exactly light, but in the inimitable words of India.Arie, "I am not my hair, I am not this skin". In Trinidad, I might hear that I'm nice looking for a darkie, because to some I suppose 'dark' and 'lovely' are mutually exclusive terms. I didn't learn it that way. I've heard that I could use 'a little milk in my coffee' (a West Indian expression akin to talking about 'having a little lightness') for some time now. My response? "I take my coffee black" and a smile.

The only defense against attempts to inflict these kinds of wounds is education. I am not ashamed or afraid to stand in the world as I am because I'm pretty sure I bring something to the table that no one else can. I bring me. This is what we must teach our children and in many cases, it is what we must teach ourselves.

As the article notes, non-Black folk tan, some to the point of orangeness and rubbery skin (a whole other story entirely!) while we bemoan our drops of brown. Isn't there enough on the planet to worry about without adding this tripe?

India.Arie sings 'I am not my hair'

Why Cain isn't able

A little over a decade ago, I visited London. During that visit, my girlfriend and I went to visit the Greenwich Meridian. While there, we were walking on a narrow path side by side. An older woman was coming towards us. Without so much as an exchanged glance, G and I separated both of us stepping off the path, so that the woman could have the path. We took the grass. She, instead of saying "Thank you" or even smiling her thanks, clutched her handbag thinking perhaps, that we intended to snatch it from her. Our instinctual deference to an older woman was mistaken for theft prep.

A few weeks later, at the end of our visit to a famous museum in Paris, we went to the restrooms before heading home. There, an older woman prevented her granddaughter from using the restroom after me. Though I'd like to think this was my imagination, I'm pretty sure it wasn't. You see, the child saw me step out and she briskly stepped forward. You know how those ladies rooms lines can be! Gran, in her infinite wisdom, grabbed hold of the little girl and allowed someone else to use the facilities I had just vacated. Perhaps Gran assumed that I had sat upon the seat and might have left various germs behind? Gran would have been wrong. Note to Nana: I never sit in public restrooms if there are no seat covers, so the stall I vacate is quite safe from my germs I can assure you.

I tell these two stories as my preamble to saying this: when Herman Cain said during the Republican debate on Monday 13 June 2011, that he would be reluctant to hire a Muslim without first challenging/testing his 'loyalty' to the constitution, my stomach turned and I immediately had a flashback of my trip to London and Paris. I thought, "Wow! Did he really just say that? I mean, seriously?" In 1999, my response was, "Did she really just do that? I mean, seriously?"

For me, my response to Cain boils down to this: as a man of color Herman Cain should know better than to lump all Muslims together. Hasn't he experienced enough of that 'lumping' crap in his own lifetime? If he hasn't I'd like to know where and when he grew up because I certainly have, and I'm pretty sure my world is more integrated than his was at the beginning of his life.

Rather than judge a Muslim contender for a role in his administration on his/her merits, Cain throws out this asinine and repugnant suggestion that because an individual prays in a certain way, he/she is immediately suspect? Listening, I thought I heard echoes of any number of stereotypes about people of color; homosexuals; Japanese-Americans during WWII; Hispanics; women! Well before the end of the debate, any positive thoughts I had had about Herman Cain had been consigned to the trash heap.

Surely, a candidate for President, one who wishes to be taken seriously in that role - either candidate or President - can do better than this? At some point during the course of the evening I had to say to myself, "You know Herman, it really no longer matters what else you say, cuz Mr. Cain, you ain't able. You may be willing, but you ain't able." Sorry.

 

Reality check

So I've been thinking about something I heard recently. In a very brief interview with Christiane Amanpour, Tim Pawlenty (former Minnesota governor) suggested that changes to Social Security were necessary, but that obviously they couldn't be enacted in such a way as to affect those already collecting checks or on the verge of doing so. I have to admit, that was the first piece of real sense I'd heard ANYONE speak on the matter.

About a week later, I read an article AARP Bulletin written by the CEO. In it, he talked about the success of grass roots activity in getting Congress to 'back off' on some of its "plans to make draconian changes to Medicare". "The fight would continue", he said, as Congress "continues to debate whether or not to make harmful cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid." sigh.

I wondered, how is it that we contend that the deficit is our primary concern but at the same time, we insist that we only want budgetary cuts to affect programs that don't directly affect us. How have people become so comfortable holding these views (which are so clearly at odds) in their heads at the same time? I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who feels the cognitive dissonance here so I have to ask, "How does that work?"

When a household income decreases, everything feels the effects, not just the things we're not so passionate about. One job? Well the cable gets cut or reduced; perhaps you'll have to sell one car; you eat out much less and maybe someone will have to stop going to swim or dance lessons. That's just the way it works. Lifestyles change. They have to. So too should it be for nations. Government income is down drastically, government expenditure will have to be pruned back commensurately and yet, there's all this weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth at the mere mention of cuts to some programs. If you think about it, every program is sacrosanct to some population. But if you insist that only those that are not sacred and inviolable should be cut then really, there's no point to talking about the deficit is there? Clearly, we're stuck with it. In my view, either we go with the status quo or everything's open to discussion. Either we all share the pain or we all do nothing. Be assured though that whatever choice is made, there will be consequences.

I just wish someone would explain to me how the thinking works. This, "Cut yes, but just don't cut mine" principle doesn't really seem to be working. But what do I know? I just live here. Worse comes to worst, I could always return to my island paradise where there is a hammock waiting.

Moveable Feasts

Some years ago, I had a boyfriend who I described as one who thought that integrity was a moveable feast. I got rid of him fairly soon after I started describing him that way, if not soon after I made the assessment. Sometimes you see, there's a lag between realization of the truth and acting on that realization. So it is with the Donald and Arnold I think.

With the Donald (Trump), I say that anyone who can play at running for President while playing at having a full head of hair, is immediately suspect. My simply logic is that if you will lie to me about your hair line, you will lie to me about anything. Simple. Asinine logic perhaps, but simple.

The Governator is similarly problematic. All I can say of him is, "How could you?" Lying about something for a few days would seem an eternity to me. The thought of ten years just boggles my mind. As with the Donald, I wonder now if he could do this, of what else might he be capable? I know it's not my place to judge either The Governator or The Donald, but seriously how can I not?

I've long had my doubts about The Donald...the hair. No big deal. I don't work for him nor do I wish to, but the Governator I've actually admired for some time primarily for his apparent reasonableness as the chief executive of a state. But this, this moveable feast that he's made of ethics and integrity? Gosh that's a lot to accept there Arnold.

At the end of the day, I suppose it matters not. The Donald won't run and Arnold is a naturalized citizen so he can't run but quite apart from the running or not for high office, it really makes me wonder is there anyone in office with the cojones to fess up to their mistakes early or do we have to keep going through these dreadful exposes of folks' peccadilloes? I'm guessing the answer to that is "No" and "Yes". No, folk don't have the cojones and yes, there will be more exposes. Next up.........................

Anthony Weiner as it turned out.

Do you or don't you have something to say?

Several years ago, I had the opportunity to sing for Harolyn Blackwell*, an African-American classically trained singer. As one who took her singing pretty seriously, this was a great blessing for me. As a business student at the time, this activity really didn't 'rhyme' with my other pursuits, but it was important nonetheless and was given a fair amount of psychic energy.

My coach insisted that after the Master Class I ask Ms. Blackwell whether she thought I had enough of a gift to make a career in music. Reluctantly, very reluctantly, and only at the coach's insistence, I asked the question. She cocked her head, looked at me consideringly and said, "If you have something to say, I think you do". Hmm. I never acted on that bit of information. Frankly, I didn't have the stomach to fight the fight that's necessary to make a career as a singer but still, having it said meant something.

I'm remembering that exchange now having just seen Oprah's interview with Ralph Lauren. In it,  Lauren says of himself, "I knew I had something to say". Just like that, very matter-of-factly. "I knew I had something to say." He went on to say too, that not only did he know it, but he also had the level of confidence to give life to that knowledge. That's the point at which his story and mine diverge. He needed no one to tell him that he had a point of view that would resonate with others. He just knew. For all my apparent self-confidence, I'm still waiting for approval. What's that about?

As I try to figure out my way forward, I have to keep in mind that I too feel that I have something to say. Though the questions of how to say it, to whom it should be said, and when and where to say it remain unanswered, I have to remember Ralph and Harolyn. Ralph didn't need validation. I do. I got it and yet I'm still hemming and hawing. So what exactly am I waiting for?

You can create a place for yourself if you have something to say. The challenge is the believing in the power of your words and that's usually where the bottleneck is. It sure as heck is where mine is.


==========>


*Ms. Blackwell, famously got her 'big break' when the role for which she was understudy became available. At the Met! The singer originally hired to sing the lead, Kathleen Battle, for the production was 'released' for, to put it delicately, 'conduct unbecoming'.
Harolyn Blackwell performs in the East Room of the White House.jpg

10 year assessment: some lemons, plenty of lemonade

So today is my anniversary: the 10th anniversary of my arrival in the US. 10 years. 10 long years. Or maybe just 10 years, some of them long, some short. I wonder what I've learned in the intervening span of time? Here are a few things that come immediately to mind.

America the beautiful is a place rife with inconsistencies. This is a place proud of its freedoms and yet riddled with 'isms' that can (and do) often deny you the freedom to be who you are, a freedom as fundamental as the right to life. For me, the last decade has afforded me the opportunity to figure out whether who I am is going to be compromised to get what I want. That was an easy, "No". Figuring out how to get what I want in the absence of that compromise, however, has not been quite as easy.

Much of my time here over the last decade has been spent trying to 'find my way'. I'm not sure that I've found it yet. This is a place where My Way, per Frank Sinatra, is considered to be the way to go and yet for some, the way is fraught with challenge. Well I don't suppose anyone's 'way' is without challenge, but let's take a quick tour of Liesl's Way thus far. After four years at an international organization, a position is created for Liesl. She is interviewed and the role is eventually given to someone 15 years her junior with no relevant experience. The reason, she's told, is that the selected candidate would have more energy than the incumbent. Having had that phrase translated, she now knows that it's well-known code for "she's younger than you". A rude welcome to the post-40 world. OK then. Moving right along.

On the opposite side of that though, I've learned how to use my voice, both the singing and speaking ones. My voice coaches have been extremely successful in teaching me how to use my instrument to bring joy and sometimes tears. I didn't come for that specifically, but no one can know how important it is for me to have gained and held on to that particular bit of knowledge through all the changes scenes of my life. Even as the scenes continue to change, a song of praise and joy will continually be on my lips. The improvements to my voice are probably the single greatest blessing of this past ten years. And this does not negate or denigrate anything I had learned in the years before I got here, lest anyone take it that way. This is about having a vocal breakthrough that was entirely unexpected and all the more significant for its having been unexpected.

In general, I don't complain about the set backs I've faced over the last decade. Some are of my own making, my insistence on My Way is certainly part of that, but at the end of the day it's been a good decade. The broadening of my mind as a consequence of my education, both inside and outside the classroom, and the blessings I've seen and received along the way cannot be denied or downplayed.

As many lemons as there have been, there has also been lemonade. Many interesting friendships created, though some perhaps not nurtured to the extent that they should have been; and many interesting learning experiences. Even the time at the international organization was a growth experience, though there isn't enough money in the world to take me back there! But don't let me tempt God. I have a strong streak of Jonah in me............

I've also tested a few relationships. Some have buckled under the stress, others have not. It is what it is. Moreover, it is as it was meant to be. I accept that I am equally culpable for those failures as much as was the other party. Still, at the end of a decade, I can safely say that the best years are ahead, God willing.

So drink up! There's likely to be a whole lot more lemonade served in the next 10 years.

And for your listening pleasure, a song that seems strangely appropriate here.....Nina Simone sings "I hold no grudge".

One mani too many

I'm currently re-reading Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers - The Story of Success. In it, Gladwell suggests that none of us achieves success alone, but that we are indebted to parentage and patronage for what we learn of work and effort and their possible rewards. Following Gladwell then and based on my experience in the hair salon today, I'm moved to ask: what parenting influences can you easily list that account for your current money practices? And, following on from that, which ones would you teach/are you teaching  your children? Were there any lessons worth teaching and if so, are you making it a habit now to model that behavior for others in your family?

Here's why I ask. Today is Saturday, a day famous among women of color for the hours we spend in the hair salon. Typically, I spend my time in the chair chatting with my hairdresser about money. She desperately wants to own a home, but she doesn't really have a plan. So we usually talk about saving and frugality, two of my favorite past times. Today was no different.

As I was leaving though, I saw something in the shop that gave me pause: three teenagers, none of them over 15, having mani-pedis. I wondered to myself, "What is that likely to teach them about money priorities going forward?" Now, I appreciate that I am not of this age where manicures are apparently de rigueur for 15 year old girls, but I do have to ask, when you get a teen started on the ritual of the mani-pedi at 15, where does that end up? I also wondered who might be paying for this Saturday morning treat. [Answer: the parent. There was an exchange over buying flip flops for which the teen offered to pay so clearly she wasn't paying for the rest of the visit.] I also asked myself how often the treat was offered and whether these young ladies had to do anything to earn this outing? If you're thinking it wasn't any of my business, be assured, I thought that too but still.................

I would hardly want to inflict my personal manicure-for-interviews, pedicure-only-a-little-more-frequently standard on anyone else, but at the very least shouldn't we be mindful that these kinds of treats build up in impressionable minds a set of standards which they may be hard pressed to sustain? If the standard is: you do this, you get that, then fine. But if the standard is: you just have to be and stuff comes your way, that's a dangerous way to go.

The one thing I had hoped everyone would have learned from this awful economy is that playing fast and loose with money has nasty and long lasting consequences. Teaching children/young people anything other than extremely careful management of financial resources is a recipe for disaster. Don't believe me? Check the foreclosure stats for 2008, 2009 and 2010. Throwing money away on perishables/consumables is a bad idea. I'm not for a moment suggesting that we never treat ourselves, but rather that we do so while holding in mind our long term money goals. Bank it, don't waste it. And yes, I do think that weekly pedicures are a waste....unless of course, you're coming to my Day Spa because you can be assured I will be banking it when you do stop by!

Winning the Future Part 2: Blackeyed HR

OMG! That's gotta hurt!

While watching ABC's 'What Would You Do?' on Friday 4 February 2011, a terrible thing happened - HR got a seriously ugly black eye. I mean seriously ugly.

If you don't know the premise of this John Quiñones-hosted series, it's this: Quiñones and his team come up with a scenario and then go out and make it happen. Using actors and some fairly elaborate ruses, they create morally/ethically challenging situations to test unsuspecting people and see what they would do. According to Quinones' promo, they're trying to ascertain whether onlookers will "step in, step up or step away".

On Friday last, one test scenario was that of a coffee shop manager looking for a kitchen employee. The test arose when the candidate seeking the position was deaf. Bear in mind that the position was for kitchen help, but once it became clear that the two young women were hearing impaired, the manager was clear in his message: you can fill out the application form but it won't matter, I'm not hiring you.

At three different points during the 'experiment', HR practitioners witnessed the exchange between the coffee shop manager and the prospective applicant. I am shocked, appalled, horrified (is that tongue-in-cheek?) to report that they offered tips and tricks to the manager as to how he could discriminate and not get caught. Discrimination best practices perhaps?

It is not my intent here to judge HR in general, but I do have some pretty strong opinions about these three 'practitioners' in particular. Given my own professional situation, it might best not to say anything too negative, but this does give one pause doesn't it? One of the HR experts offered the pithy comment that "these people have more rights than.....". ['these people'? Surely, you jest?] Another of the HR officers suggested that a better way to handle the situation was to accept the application and simply write on the back "Not a fit". That was her expert opinion. Sigh.

If that is the quality of HR advice some managers are getting, is it any wonder that so many over-40s are unemployed? Is it any wonder that so many qualified people who aren't mainstream - i.e. differently abled, differently nationalitied, differently ethnicitied - are out of work? I don't begin to suggest that discriminatory practices are the only reason folk are out of work, but I do mean to suggest that a clear-eyed (as opposed to jaundiced-eyed) look needs to be taken at hiring practices. The fact that an organization can't be successfully taken to court for its behavior is not a good enough reason to keep doing something that is known to be both illegal and immoral.

Perhaps HR folk need to stop worrying about what can be proven in the court of law and need to start worrying about what can be proved in the higher court of morality and ethics (aka going to sleep at night). Seriously though, this is so not the way to winning the future. The business environment is so cut throat, so fraught with pitfalls and challenges that really, HR needs to be seeking and hiring the best candidate who has the goods to deliver in a given job. If that means hiring a deaf woman to wash your damn dishes then so be it. Can she wash the damn dishes? OK then hire her to wash the damn dishes.

Discriminating (or giving tacit approval to hiring managers' discrimination) is not the way to a prosperous future. I don't know much, but I know that for sure.

WWYD: Discriminating against deaf job applicants

Science Fair Part 2: Win the Future

Some weeks ago, while my sister and niece were in the throes of their preparations for the Science Fair (which I referred to as the Science FEAR), I wrote at length about the things about that process that seemed wrong to me.

More recently, I read an article in which the author talked about the lack of engagement of employees to their work. In responding to some of the arguments advanced, I suggested that perhaps the problem was that hiring managers were selecting based on the wrong criteria. Today's transaction processor I suggested, (someone who can perform a specific task or set of tasks), will not grow up to be tomorrow's transformational thinker. The skill sets are entirely different. In addition, while transaction processing can be easily learned, transformational thinking cannot.

So what is the connection between the two you ask? Well, as I see it, it's this: it's thinking and the teaching thereof.

The science fair is about more than just science...or it should be. The science fair, and the teaching of scientific thinking is also about the teaching of thinking. If well done, the annual ritual of the science fair can lead to greater depth in our children's thinking and greater depth in the nation's thinking as a whole and ultimately to greater productivity and creativity, I believe, in the workforce. Given that not too many weeks ago it was reported on the evening news that by the end of the sophomore year of college most students show little, if any, improvement in their higher order/critical thinking skills, I'm thinking that investing in a new approach to the science fair can't possibly hurt.

So why do we need to care about the development of critical thinking skills? Simply put, it's because the future will be won by technologically and scientifically savvy nations. The future will belong to innovators, and innovation is the result of critical thinking.

Innovation is a product of seeing connections that others don't; asking the questions that others won't and then taking the information received and coming up with an answer to a question others don't even know needs to be answered. This is where the science fair, with its emphasis on hypothesizing and hypothesis testing, is key. Science encourages and develops those skills and those are skills that need to be taught, learned, practiced and honed over years if innovative, transformational thinkers are to be the result.

So perhaps we need to revisit the whole science fair paradigm and re-conceptualize the thing. Perhaps we should begin with the end in mind, as Stephen Covey would say. If we begin by asking, "What is it that we want to achieve here?” we might actually have a shot at achieving it and at winning a greater future.

Stand at the door and knock

I attended a church meeting the other day (please don't stop reading just on account of that!), at which an attendee was saying that it's tough being a Christian when Christians are so reviled. Another attendee supported the first speaker's comment by saying that it causes her some anger to see her way of life and values being eroded. "Hm," I thought, "I don't have any of those feelings. Something must be wrong with my version of Christianity." The more I think about it though, the more I think maybe nothing's wrong with my brand of Christianity, I just have a different perspective is all.

Here's my perspective: I chose my path. As a Christian, that's what you do. As a Christian, you choose to see and live in the world in a certain way. People who are not Christians choose to see and live in the world in some other way. As I understand it, the foundation of Christianity is free will, the ability to choose our path. As a Christian then, I have to be OK with others' choices. I am not called to like them, but I am called to respect others' right to make those choices. Perhaps I feel called to try to help them make different choices, but I am not called to make the choice for them.

The latest conservative Republican attempt to limit access to abortion by first redefining what constitutes rape is a case in point. While some will get caught up in the madness of what equals 'rape', the real issue underlying all this is where my focus is fixed. The goal of this new legislation is clearly to so redefine rape as to limit access to abortion to a much smaller subset of cases. Here, the Republicans are doing the very thing that I object to most with Christians: they are forcing their personal choices on others. I believe it's bad policy and worse, it's bad Christianity.

In this country, as in many others, there is a separation of Church & State. There is a reason for this: my religion may not be yours; my understanding may not be yours. To prevent needless nattering, state/federal law must be based on precepts that do not trample on either of our beliefs. Simple enough. The trouble comes when religious conservatives bring their freely chosen precepts into the drafting and application of law. That kinda sounds like the marriage of church and state rather than the separation thereof and I'm thinking it's the wrong way to go.

Our Christian responsibility is to demonstrate by our lives that Christianity is a good choice, the best possible choice. What we are not called to do, is to drag people across our chosen finish line against their will. God himself does not do that. He stands at the door and knocks. Barging in through the closed door as the Republicans are trying to do is simply the wrong approach and frankly, it taints everything else they try to do.

For what specifically?

A week or so ago, on the evening news there was a report about a gentleman who lost his insurance because his wife paid the premium 2 cents short. The insured, a Mr. Ronald Flanagan, was in the middle of receiving cancer treatment at the time of said cancellation.

When asked by ABCNews Reporter David Muir (I think it was), whether an apology would be issued once the ridiculousness of the cancellation had been exposed, the customer service representative working the case responded, "For what specifically?" Excuse me? Your organization terminates the insurance of an ailing man (never mind a Vietnam veteran ailing possibly on account of his service to his country and his exposure to bioagents during that service), in the middle of treatment and you have to ask for what specifically you might need to apologize? The mind boggles at the stupidity and cluelessness of this employee. The question is though, is it the employee or his organizational circumstances that make him stupidly clueless?

Organizations have to be right. The need to protect the organization from all liability is taught to employees almost from the moment they get through the front door. All well and good to limit liability, but when you are proven to be wrong, surely, surely, surely, you can admit the error and move on? Doesn't there come a point when treating people with decency trumps limiting liability? I refuse to believe that that is too much to ask.

For people who are already ill, like Mr. Flanagan, there are few choices. They can't just run out and change policies mid-stream as no one will have them on their books. Given this reality, there is no need for real customer care on the part of the insurer, but that fact alone makes it all the more precious when it is extended. Has anyone considered that unhealthy people actually might have healthy friends who could be in the market for insurance products? Has anyone considered that treating one sick person well might generate a stream of business from those friends and family? Has anyone considered that good deeds do, ultimately, yield good outcomes?

Were the customer care rep to be in Mr. Flanagan's shoes, how would he wish to be treated? I presume, and I don't think it a ridiculous presumption, that he would hope to be treated with empathy and respect. Why then did he not think to treat the client in the same way? Why then did he not understand that an apology would be necessary? Why would he even need to ask, "For what specifically?" when asked about apologizing?

The fact that a client is in treatment for a life-threatening illness should trigger a whole new set of customer care standards. Why not let the fact of a client's illness determine how staff interact with them? Maybe one day, companies will eventually treat all clients well, but let's just take the baby step of treating the ailing client well first. We'll figure out the rest later.

I know it's a stretch, but if we could just try walking a mile in another's moccasins we might find ourselves changed by the experience, changed in a good way. Empathy isn't weakness. Trust me on this.

Find a link to one of many stories about Mr. Flanagan's experience here: Two cents

Keeping my brother

I just read an article in Sunday's Washington Post, written by the young man (Allen Haywood) who was viciously beaten on the L'Enfant Plaza (Washington, DC) train platform a couple of weeks ago. I have to say, that the absence of venom or self-pity in his writing was ....... I don't even know how to describe it, except to say that I applaud him for being able to take the tack he did.

For me, the most alarming aspect of this story is the fact that those on the platform neither sought to help nor did anyone try to draw the station manager's attention to the fact that a fellow passenger was under attack. Had the victim been a part of the marauding group, I could possibly (maybe) understand the reluctance of passersby/witnesses to intervene, but he was clearly older than they and he was minding his own business reading when the attack began. I think it must have been pretty clear that he was not, in any way, an instigator or willing participant in the mayhem. So why the reluctance to intervene or even to call for help?

It's interesting to me that whereas in Arizona, people old and young, jumped a troubled young man with a gun, in DC, people, old and young, simply looked away or better yet, shot video which they then uploaded to YouTube. How can we think it appropriate to record but not react/respond? Do we not think enough of each other to take the risk and call the station manager? That's a pretty sad state of affairs.

I keep asking myself when it became more important to watch than to do? I wasn't there of course, but as someone who did once famously stop a train because a lady getting off with a toddler and a baby left her handbag behind, I'm giving myself leave to speak. I dashed off the train (OK so I'm a little impulsive), instructing (yeah, I'm a little bold too) the lady nearest to me to watch my stuff while I chased after the departing lady. Between shouting at the lady to stop and tossing a couple of words to the train operator to wait for me, I must have looked like a nutcase. It wasn't the first time (that I looked like a nutcase) and it probably won't be the last. [In case you were interested, the operator did wait; the lady and her babies got the handbag, and I got to work on time. I also got a little extra cardio in that morning too. Happy ending all around.]

I say all that to say this: as I said in my piece on Ted Williams, we have to be in the world to change it. We can't just watch and shake our heads, tut-tutting at how things have got so bad. We have to be in it. What's the point of the empty voyeurism? Wouldn't we rather be known for having done something, than gain temporary notoriety for having stood by and watched, in this case, while a man was pretty badly beaten? I dunno. I figure the worst that can happen is that we might have to tell folk, "Look, if it was me, I would hope somebody would have done the same." Maybe, like me, you'll help someone and no one will know but who cares? I'm in it. It's also why I write my meanderings. My writing, even if it's only read by you and me, is me putting it out there. You have to be in it to win it, so come on and get in the game.

We are our brothers' keeper. What a shame Mr. Haywood had no brothers on the platform.

Full article by the assault victim available here: Why my metro assault is a problem

The Final Frontier......it ain't space

In the moments before Star Trek, Next Generation episodes begin, we hear Capt. Jean-Luc Picard intoning these words, "[sic] to seek out new life, new civilizations. to boldly go where no man has gone before". Space, they say, is the final frontier. I would beg to disagree.

A recent news report on ABC (link to full report below), reviewed the findings of a research endeavor that determined that "45 percent of students show no significant improvement in the key measures of critical thinking, complex reasoning and writing by the end of their sophomore years." Yikes! What's the point then of spending all that money? The most expensive school in the nation is about $60k per year. So if we believe this research, $120k of a $240k education bill will have been invested for um, "no significant improvement in [sic] critical thinking, complex reasoning and writing"? Dang. You might be better off playing the ponies, it's a surer return on investment.

The article places the blame for the lack of development of these critical skills on both student and faculty, and while I would certainly say that faculty share in the responsibility, the reality is that the development of the mind is the mind owner's responsibility, no one else's. A school has a responsibility to teach, but I, as the mind owner, have the responsibility to be engaged in the work, read, contemplate and participate in what's happening. I also have a responsibility to challenge myself by not filling my academic playlist with "underwater basket weaving" and "clapping for credit" which the research suggests, many young people do.

So, the choice is ours. Space isn't the final frontier, the mind is. The mind is the first and the last frontier for each of us. For some of us, it's the only frontier that matters. If as a nation America really doesn't want every other first world nation to whiz by; if as a nation America would prefer not to see China eat us for lunch (and still be hungry because at this rate, we won't be particularly filling), we all need to engage in the life of the mind. The easy road is a low road that leads to an inglorious destination.

Student Tracking Finds Limited Learning in College - ABC News

Just a dog in shirtsleeves?

I'm currently 'between professional opportunities'. As a consequence of my job search, I am often invited to attend interviews but sometimes arrangements fall apart for one reason or another. When they do, I often have to wonder why it's so difficult to notify candidates ahead of time that changes are being made? I have a few suspicions why it doesn't happen but more of that anon.

Here are three examples of interviews gone awry. I'm sure every job-seeker in the world has a story or two to tell. Here are mine:

Interview 1
On the day before Thanksgiving, I was to attend an interview. It was a cattle call for about sixty people. Under different circumstances, I probably wouldn't have attended but circumstances alter cases. I was sufficiently desperate to make the effort in spite of my misgivings. We were asked to set aside 3 hours (yes, on the day before Thanksgiving) for the process.

When I got to the venue (a local community center) I found an unmarked door, no one seated at reception and a poorly lit waiting room. Fortunately for me, a gentleman seated just inside the door saw my hesitant approach and asked me whether I was there for the interviews. When I said that I was, he informed me that they had just been advised that the interviews had been rescheduled for 4:00 pm on the day before Thanksgiving. I presume they still wanted us to set aside 3 hours, on the day before Thanksgiving when there was some kind of precipitation in the forecast.

Interview 2
I received a call to attend an interview. We scheduled for two days later. My life, if you've read my other blog, Losing Mummy, Finding Barbara, is not simple, so I need advanced notice if there are to be changes. Of course, as you seek work, you can hardly say, "Look, I've got this situation at home blah, blah, blah" but between the extreme of bending over backwards to accommodate me and treating me as though my universe matters not, a host of options exist.

At any rate, my interviewer was unable to meet with me on the scheduled date and at the scheduled time. Unfortunately, he called two hours before the meeting to advise me that a change needed to be made. The problem with that is that my caregiver was already in place and I was already out of the house. I picked up the voice mail while in the train station, half way to the meeting. I turned around and went back home. I was no closer to a job, but I still had to pay the cost of a day's caregiving.

Interview 3
I gave my resume to a company President who was a social connection. He invited me to interview. We spoke at length, he taking copious notes all the while (always a good sign I thought). He promised to be in touch. He wasn't. I followed up with emails and phone calls. No response. I subsequently saw him in a social situation. He promised to follow up. He never has. I am fortunate that we no longer move in the same social space as it would be difficult for me to continue to smile as though his company's lack of basic respect wasn't a problem.

So here's what I think..........

The economy is a hot mess and that mess has meant that there are many candidates looking for work. This has made it possible for companies to be very discriminating. It has also meant that companies can also be equally dismissive but in this world of social media, ill-treating prospects can have negative reputational impact fairly quickly. This alone should make closing the loop with candidates a requirement. Even a form email is better than nothing at all.

Second, I believe that there are people who simply have no understanding of what it is to be unemployed. This is hard to imagine but, I suspect true. I believe that there are people who, in the absence of that understanding, simply cannot empathize and therefore cannot understand that a simple note that indicates that you are not a fit for an opportunity goes a long way.

Third, I believe that there are organizations that are so disorganized that even basic courtesy is nearly impossible for them to manage. My Thanksgiving Eve interview is a case in point. How difficult would it have been to use their email system to send out a rescheduling notice in the many hours before the noon start of the interviews? It simply didn't occur to anyone as being important. The attitude quite simply was., "If you want this job, you'll come back and stay until 7:00 pm even on the day before Thanksgiving. It's that simple. We have something you want and you'll do just about anything to get it."

Organizations don't seem to realize that when they treat prospective employees poorly those candidates know in their guts that they should not expect anything better once they are on board. If they accept an offer of work, managers should know that these new staff will always have one foot out the door.

At the end of the day, all three of these situations told me one thing: my needs were my business. Companies have no need in this market to take jobseekers' needs into consideration but that lack of consideration sends a very strong message to the discriminating prospect who may be in search of a job but may also put a high value on how an organization treats them. It would behoove employers to treat each prospect as if they were 'the one' until it's proven that they aren't. That means extending a wee bit of courtesy to the candidate because you just never know who your next superstar will be.

Courtesy my friends, it costs you nothing and yet, it can cost you everything in the long run, including a stellar employee who goes elsewhere. Remember, we're not just dogs in shirtsleeves. We're people too.

Forget the Science Fair, it's a Science FEAR

I'm standing one step away from the annual childhood ritual of the science fair and I have to say, it's really a strange rite of passage with (to me) fairly limited educational benefits.

How can I count the ways this thing makes little sense to me? Well first there's the wholesale application of the scientific method. With all due respect to the scientific method, this is not something that is easily learned, certainly not by eight year olds! The steps of the method, listed below, may seem quite simple, but at 8 or at any age and with any kind of learning disability, some significant effort has to be made to make these principles accessible. My question is: why make an experiment, requiring the application of all 6 steps of the method a requirement at the second grade, especially when there is little likelihood of the teacher having covered all these concepts?

Why not create a science fair system that begins with teaching the importance of formulating questions? Later, the teachers can graduate to incorporating doing background research, still later graduating to formal hypothesis generation and hypothesis testing. With each passing year, as more is taught, students are better able to apply more and more of the method to their projects. Projects could then become more elegant and more learning would take place. With such a process, the curriculum would remain accessible and the learning would be lasting, the whole point of education.

As it is, it seems to me that asking an 8 year old to 'construct a hypothesis' is ridiculous in the extreme. It is entirely possible that my perspective is informed by the challenges of our second grader. Her problems with formulating and asking probing questions are a function of her ASD, but I'm fairly certain that she isn't the only child who, in the absence of sufficient teaching, can't figure out what a good scientific question might be. How hard would it be to actually, I don't know, teach the thinking involved in science? How hard would it be to expose the children to these concepts in ways that make science more enjoyable rather than more terrifying?

What I most resent is the way the whole science fair is set up, such that it seems only to serve two negative purposes. First, it serves to alienate children from science. I've heard stories of parents who simply recycle projects from one year to the next. Where's the learning in that? What are we teaching our children? It's definitely not the rudiments of science, more likely it's the rudiments of cheating. The second purpose that seems to be served here, is that the system inadvertently alienates children from their parents. If a parent is a high school graduate with little science exposure, how does she/he help the child and if she/he can't, how does that make her/him look to the child? Further, how does that help the education system achieve its goal of engaging parents in their children's education?

The whole thing seems a terrible waste of time and emotional energy to me, but that's just me. Oh and at the end of the day, it's the parents doing half the thinking behind the output. What's the point of that?

============================>

The 6 steps of the Scientific Method:

• Ask a Question
• Do Background Research
• Construct a Hypothesis
• Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
• Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
• Communicate Your Results

Seeing and believing

Who hasn't been Ted Williams at some point in their life? Perhaps our moment of 'Ted-ness' didn't take us to the streets, but who among us hasn't drifted far off the path we envisaged for ourselves?  Who?

While we revel in the joy and excitement of Williams' new found hope and prospects, perhaps we should take a moment to consider that it is the fact of his having been seen that has given him this chance. Perhaps we should consider for a moment, that every day we pass folk on the streets (and in our homes?) who only want to be seen.


Seeing isn't nearly as hard as it might first appear.  It involves putting down the iPad, iPhone or other smartphone for a minute and making eye and emotional contact with the person right next to or in front of you.  Think about it.  Not too long ago, there were no gadgets to keep us as connected and yet disconnected from our neighbors.

Everywhere you go today, when you see someone down on their luck or just experiencing a rough patch, someone who is clearly in need of a hand, perhaps you might ask yourself, "Are you Ted Williams?" and follow that thought with whatever action you think is appropriate.  Maybe you'll buy someone a cup of coffee or put someone in touch with a coworker looking to fill a job.  Ted Williams isn't the only diamond out there waiting to be found and polished, given an opportunity to be set into a spectacular piece of jewelry.  No indeed, given our almost 10% unemployment,  you can rest assured that there are quite a few Teds out there.

Commit yourself to seeing and believing in someone today.  It's really not that hard.

Happy New Year!

At the end of every year, I consider how things have gone over the preceding twelve months. Over the last three or four years in particular, I've not wanted to peer too closely at things as things haven't progressed as well as I would have hoped. 2010, though was quite a departure. Perspective is a heckuva thing.

Though by many measures, I haven't done all that I would have liked, I was blessed to complete a project which, frankly, I've been wanting to complete for about 5 years.  Instead of being hampered by unemployment, I was freed by it.

People talk all the time about how being fired or downsized opens up new vistas, well, it's true for me as well.  As a consequence of the blessings of 2010, economic uncertainty notwithstanding, I see 2011 as an open year, brimming with new opportunities.  For once, I don't see the closure of a bad year but rather the opening of a great one, greater still than the one just ended. 

I'm very excited about 2011.  I hope you are too.  Happy New Year.